Press and daily Dakotaian. (Yankton, Dakota Territory [S.D.]) 1880-1889, 1887-12-01
sHARP,s CONVICTION REVERSED.
Basis Of the Decision by the Court
of Appeals.

The Basls Of the Decision by the Court
of Appeals.
ALBANY, N. Y, Nov. 3o.-Jacob
Sharp's sentence has been reversed by
the court Of appeals. This will obviate
the necessity OF the long-delnyed trip to
Sing Sing, and a new trial on the basis
OF the exclusion Of some OF the more i'm
portant evidence will be this result. The
decision of the court was unanimous.
Judge Danforth wrote the opinion, a
supplemental one being handed down by
Judge Peckham.
The news that Jacob Sharp had been
granted q new trial was given Mrs.
Sharp, who told her husband a few min
utes after the appeal was granted. Sharp
manifested no erAotion whatever, but re-
manned in q stoiid state of indifference.
fropl which 1t seems impossible to
ous him.
The decision says: IT sSharp's case
comes under section 10 of the act, then
the testimony before the senate was rele.
want, and no protest OF his would avail.
The Hackett case is then cited. The leg
isiatnre, for certain reasons Of Ifs own,
read a discovery OF the truth, but the
court holds that, noticing voluntary tess
timony, 1t should not be admitted In a
court OF justice. Sharp was forced to
give testimony, and cannot be said to
have been acting by his OWE choice:
There can be no violation when there is
no power to refuse, The Keller case
lis then cited. The court says: tsIt
seems to us that the evidence Of SHARP
before the senate committee was given
upder the penalty of commitment and
Imprisonment for contempt The court
holds that the testimony In the case of
The People VS.. Sharp should, therefore, not
embrace such testimony, as 1t has no APP
plicatton to such case, or az least should
not have been compulsory testimony.
Upon THIS latter clause the decision of q
majority Of the judges is made. Contin.
uing, they say the action Of the legisla-
lure was simply taken SO as to govern
them In Legislative matters, and not for
the purpose of giving the courts material
to prosecute Sharp. IL was q matter to
annui a charter alleged to have been OBJ
tanned by fraud, and was in no way a
criminal action. After defining in detail
the work done BY the senate committee,
and commenting upon the exception that
they do not think that Sharp as a confined
bride gfyer should be allowed to give;
evidence, the court says that they do
not think that anybody's e~videnceis pub
lie property. except as evidence for the
conviction OF the minds Of the Iezislat-
i've committee. Testimony, therefore,
which these wit essas gave, being given
unde compulsion, should not be used In
any prosecution, civil or criminal, against
the person so ~testifying. The instances
are cited Of cases before the Wisconsin
Legislature to uphold this decision. The
our here reviews the proceedings be-
fore the aeglSlatiye committee. The
evidence Of Pott, the Legislative
clerk, Is said by the. court to.
have not been admissible
for CONCLUDING that the Introduction Of
this evidence would do him q manifest
injustice by creating a prejudice against
his character. The evidence OF Pott was
reviewed. at length. The introduction Of
the testimony of Miller, is also looked on
IS irrelevant. The court looks upon the
majority of the evidence before the sem
ate as altogether circumstantial. The
writer OF the opinion In closing says that
it is impossible to ind any reason nor, or
lawful purpose to be gained by the proof
offered, n its admission was d very
dangerous innovation on the general rule
which excludes VI as Irrelevant to the is
sue, After dwelling upon the absence Of
Witnesses Maloney and Fnigraff, whose
testimony might have changed the com
plexson ofsthe case, the court says: .eTiie
exceptions referred to point to violations
of rules 70 the manifest prejudice Of the
defendant, and to the benefit ST those exs
ceptions he is entitled. They require i
now trial, and that 1t may be had the
Judgment OF the court hslow, and the
conviction, should be reversed anda ne "
trial granted"
Supplemental.
AhnAay, Nov. so.-Jadgs pecrham, In
agreeing with the decision In the sharp
case adds q supplemental reyersion5 Id
which he says that the admission OF .yi
dence given BY the witness proper was an